From: Grant Callaghan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 21:38:56 GMT
>On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 02:42 , email@example.com wrote:
>>If you're talking about how some species evolve to resemble other
>>nasty-tasting or poisonous ones, that's genetic, not memetic.
>And I asked you if you denied mimicry at all levels. Is not mimicry
>possible without volition? Of course it is.
Changes that produce things that resemble each other without a conscious attempt to do so can only be called mimicry by a stretch. A rock that resembles a human face in the eye of the human beholder because wind and weather shaped it thus can't be called mimicry. The fact that butterflies produce patterns on their wings that resemble eyes or other patterns can't be called mimicry, either. The pattern was not consciously shaped to look like that. It was as much an accident as the rock that looks like a face.
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 21:42:48 GMT